[Archived] Extra ! Extra ! Read All About It !

[Audax]

There you go pal; http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/11/a-conversation-with-a-muslim-london-taxi-driver-after-the-paris-attacks-that-should-shame-us-all-voices-the-independent/

Seasons Greetings.

[Audax]

China killed a bunch of "Terrorists", 28 of them, the other day in their own country.

http://www.voanews.com/content/china-security-forces-kill-terrorists-in-xinjiang/3066313.html

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

The first things to do with IS are to cut off their money, by stopping the trade in black market oil, and secondly cut off their media.

The anonymous hacker group managed to take out thousands of their Twitter accounts within hours, surely an organised effort could do this across all platforms to a greater extent?

Id agree that air strikes only is a bad idea, boots on the ground though may be pointless, as the IS troops will not stand and be obliterated.

Getting rid of the IS troops is childs play, the harder aspect to all this, is what happens afterwards. That is the vital point for me, leave a power vacuum, and itll start over again. Democracy with a credible legal system is key, but I can't see anyone looking into this aspect.

I'm also concerned about our desire to get rid of Assad. What happens then. We seem to think a fully formed democracy will spring up. Just like it did when we got rid of Saddam and Ghadafi I suppose ?

[yoda]

China killed a bunch of "Terrorists", 28 of them, the other day in their own country.

http://www.voanews.com/content/china-security-forces-kill-terrorists-in-xinjiang/3066313.html

The Chinese will not put up with laowai's, as the French will not put up with étranger's trying to impose their alien ways in their countries.

Good on them too.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

I'm also concerned about our desire to get rid of Assad. What happens then. We seem to think a fully formed democracy will spring up. Just like it did when we got rid of Saddam and Ghadafi I suppose ?

I agree. You only have to look at the reaction to the Iraq war to know that the moral argument seems to hold about as much weight among the British public as the WMD argument when it comes to intervention in other countries, i.e. none whatsoever. So if nobody's gonna appreciate us getting rid of Assad because he's a monster, and our country's actually more at risk (assuming Syria then totally capitulates to IS), then leave him alone and only target IS in my opinion. Pretty much what the Russians are doing.

[old darwen blue]

There you go pal; http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/11/a-conversation-with-a-muslim-london-taxi-driver-after-the-paris-attacks-that-should-shame-us-all-voices-the-independent/

Seasons Greetings.

Thanks pal and greetings to you too

[joey_big_nose]

I agree. You only have to look at the reaction to the Iraq war to know that the moral argument seems to hold about as much weight among the British public as the WMD argument when it comes to intervention in other countries, i.e. none whatsoever. So if nobody's gonna appreciate us getting rid of Assad because he's a monster, and our country's actually more at risk (assuming Syria then totally capitulates to IS), then leave him alone and only target IS in my opinion. Pretty much what the Russians are doing.

That's hardly true. Moral narratives are hugely important in interventions across the West (indeed in across the world) now and throughout history. The support of the StopTheWar coalition that drew millions to the streets before the Iraq war was driven by the argument that the war was morally wrong, an illegal war. Blair's government (and Bush in the US) spent huge resources trying to legitamise the war within a security rather than moral narrative (the 45 minute dossier etc). It was not easy.

If moral arguments were irrelevant we would have no refugee resettlement and we would have nuclear bombed the region murdering millions of people. Clearly that is repugnant. Perceived morality is a fundamental motivation for human decisions on all levels.

Indeed what you say at the end - on the surface a Real Politik argument - "leave Assad alone and only target IS" is actually far more powerful couched as a moral argument. IE A justification for leaving Assad in place is that it will ultimately lead to less civilian death and misery than the total destruction of the political system and the chaos that will ensue after it. This has a lot truth to it. Probably an Assad managed region is going to be more secure than a great power vacumn. That you could sell to the public.

However this would be the most explicit "pact with the devil" that Western governments have made since the end of the cold war, and will render the pretense the West has to transcendent humane values ridiculous. It also will do nothing to address the long term factors which motivate terrorism from the region, indeed it will intensify the feelings of injustice and moral bankruptcy towards Western regimes, and will - no doubt - prove a great recruiting tool for these terrorist groups. Essentially we will be selling out our moral authority to a dictator struggling to hold onto power in the hope he can improve the West's security situation.

I am not sure that deal makes sense either morally or pragmatically.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

A Russian fighter has just been shot down. The two man crew have bailed out apparently. I hope they land somewhere safe and not in ISIL territory ! The people advocating the RAF bombing Syria need to consider the repercussions of seeing our aircrew being burnt to death in a cage in similar circumstances. Sooner or later planes will go down, enemy fire or technical failure whatever, it will happen.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

That's hardly true. Moral narratives are hugely important in interventions across the West (indeed in across the world) now and throughout history. The support of the StopTheWar coalition that drew millions to the streets before the Iraq war was driven by the argument that the war was morally wrong, an illegal war. Blair's government (and Bush in the US) spent huge resources trying to legitamise the war within a security rather than moral narrative (the 45 minute dossier etc). It was not easy.

If moral arguments were irrelevant we would have no refugee resettlement and we would have nuclear bombed the region murdering millions of people. Clearly that is repugnant. Perceived morality is a fundamental motivation for human decisions on all levels.

Indeed what you say at the end - on the surface a Real Politik argument - "leave Assad alone and only target IS" is actually far more powerful couched as a moral argument. IE A justification for leaving Assad in place is that it will ultimately lead to less civilian death and misery than the total destruction of the political system and the chaos that will ensue after it. This has a lot truth to it. Probably an Assad managed region is going to be more secure than a great power vacumn. That you could sell to the public.

However this would be the most explicit "pact with the devil" that Western governments have made since the end of the cold war, and will render the pretense the West has to transcendent humane values ridiculous. It also will do nothing to address the long term factors which motivate terrorism from the region, indeed it will intensify the feelings of injustice and moral bankruptcy towards Western regimes, and will - no doubt - prove a great recruiting tool for these terrorist groups. Essentially we will be selling out our moral authority to a dictator struggling to hold onto power in the hope he can improve the West's security situation.

I am not sure that deal makes sense either morally or pragmatically.

The Iraq war wasn't morally wrong at all when considered from the position of removing a tyrannical dictator who violently supressed the majority of his people. It was only illegal because the UN didn't approve it. Well the UN never approve anything, its a morally corrupt organisation in itself that has stood by and allowed numerous atrocities happen because too many of its members vote with a vested interest. The UN making something "illegal" doesn't translate to it being immoral. The StopTheWar brigade led the opposition to the Iraq war on a legal technicality, not on moral grounds. If its a question of moral grounds then are you telling me the British public thing its morally the right thing to do to permit tyrants like Saddam Hussein? All those opposing the Iraq war were doing the legally right, selfishly right but morally wrong thing.

As for your last paragraph, the West can very literally never do the right thing in the Middle East. There is an ingrained religious and ethnic hatred of the west in that region. If you personally got to dictate our Middle East policy for the next 20 years and the government did absolutely everything you said, most countries and their populace would still be burning American and British flags in the streets at the end of it. There's this massively skewed view of many westerners that we're somehow the guilty party in all this. Historically maybe but in the modern era all we've been trying to do is stop them killing each other and stop them from being able to kill us.

The morality of StopTheWar now, in objecting to both of those aims, is twisted and sick in my opinion. Just as their hastily removed tweet was after Paris.

[Audax]

“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now,” Bush said. “To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaida. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we allowed the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

http://patriotpost.us/posts/28885

From 2007.

The problem was leaving ahead of time and I know, US has been in Korea, South since that war ended back in ? 1954. The SOFA, Status of Forces Agreement was not negotiated well and a force should have been left their, 10,000 troops say per military advisors.

Turkey has shot down that plane according to the Turks because it was in Turkish airspace, generally speaking, ISIS doesn't have the technology to bring down planes. That Jordanian Pilot, bless his soul, his plane sounds like it crashed when that happened about 9 months ago.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34907983

I wish the Kurds and Turks got along better. I don't understand the ins and outs of that conflict. I wish they weren't at each other.

Sounds like the Russians may have had bombing missions that hit the Turkmen considered kin by the Turks.

http://me-confidential.com/11212-turkey-hardens-syrian-tone-could-intervene-to-protect-turkmen.html

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

When you start flying that many missions it's inevitable that aircraft will be lost. If not by enemy action, then technical failure.

In the Vietnam War the US lost over 5000 helicopters alone. Not 500 but 5000 !

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

I wish the Kurds and Turks got along better. I don't understand the ins and outs of that conflict. I wish they weren't at each other.

Could it be that they're from a different school of Sunni Islam? Disputes in the Middle East seem to be more often religious than nationalistic. Can't figure out which school IS followers, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if its the same one as Turkey. Turkey's behaviour throughout all this has been extremely questionable if you ask me, completely reluctant to do anything even when IS were seizing towns right on their border.

[joey_big_nose]

Could it be that they're from a different school of Sunni Islam? Disputes in the Middle East seem to be more often religious than nationalistic. Can't figure out which school IS followers, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if its the same one as Turkey. Turkey's behaviour throughout all this has been extremely questionable if you ask me, completely reluctant to do anything even when IS were seizing towns right on their border.

A simple google search reveals IS to be followers of Salifism which is an ultra ultra ultra orthodox Sunni school that rejects any innovation from the time of Mohammed.

Turkey is a country with no official state religion and a functional democracy, two qualities that IS utterly reject and wish to destroy. IS and Turkey are totally opposed to one another at the most primal existential level.

Turkey have refused to arm or support the Kurds in their fight against IS due to their own long running dispute and wars with that group, and their fear the arms would be used against Turkey after IS had been dealt with. Not due to any sympathies to IS. Indeed, any support of IS by Turkey would be totally crazy. No doubt there are ultra orthodox people in Turkey who are funding and supporting IS, but not the state.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Sounds like the pilots got lucky, just shot dead whilst parachuting down. I don't think it'll end there.

[joey_big_nose]

Sounds like the pilots got lucky, just shot dead whilst parachuting down. I don't think it'll end there.

I don't see what Russia can do. Turkey is massive, relatively wealthy, with a big military and a member of NATO. Not a fight the US could win, let alone Russia.

Theyll just move on I think. Maybe a few sanctions but that will be it.

[Dreyski]

The Kurds want their own country, which is comprised of Northern Iraq and some of Eastern Turkey. A Kurdish militia (PKK?) have been 'operating' in East Turkey for several years now. Fortunately, IS seem to be a common foe but make no mistake, there's going to be lasting tension there.

[joey_big_nose]

The Iraq war wasn't morally wrong at all when considered from the position of removing a tyrannical dictator who violently supressed the majority of his people. It was only illegal because the UN didn't approve it. Well the UN never approve anything, its a morally corrupt organisation in itself that has stood by and allowed numerous atrocities happen because too many of its members vote with a vested interest. The UN making something "illegal" doesn't translate to it being immoral. The StopTheWar brigade led the opposition to the Iraq war on a legal technicality, not on moral grounds. If its a question of moral grounds then are you telling me the British public thing its morally the right thing to do to permit tyrants like Saddam Hussein? All those opposing the Iraq war were doing the legally right, selfishly right but morally wrong thing.

As for your last paragraph, the West can very literally never do the right thing in the Middle East. There is an ingrained religious and ethnic hatred of the west in that region. If you personally got to dictate our Middle East policy for the next 20 years and the government did absolutely everything you said, most countries and their populace would still be burning American and British flags in the streets at the end of it. There's this massively skewed view of many westerners that we're somehow the guilty party in all this. Historically maybe but in the modern era all we've been trying to do is stop them killing each other and stop them from being able to kill us.

The morality of StopTheWar now, in objecting to both of those aims, is twisted and sick in my opinion. Just as their hastily removed tweet was after Paris.

Morality is very driven by perspective. Taking the Iraq war as an example you can make two completely contradictory statements and both can be morally justified

1) To allow a dictator to reign and abuse his people is morally wrong

2) To invade without agreed international legal justification is morally wrong

Bush and Blair argued for 1), STW argued for 2).

The main issue I see is if you use 1) as the imperative is you need to be consistent. And to be consistent we would need to be invading a hell of a lot of countries across the world which is impossibke. It also creates the responsiblity to create post war a better situation than previously existed under the dictator regimes. We really failed by our own moral standards on both counts- other evil dictatorships around the world were allowed to stand if sympathetic to the West. Also the situation we helped create in Iraq and Afghanistan was even worse than before we intervened.

2) is a moral imperative which is a lot more limited, but would have allowed the West to keep some kind of moral consistency. Sadly we have lost that completely now. We are hugely entrenched in the region. We have in many ways created the mess so are duty bound to clean it up. We look like incompetent idiots who chose to be "moral" when it suits us.

Total sh!tshow from start to finish.

What's the lesson of the story? Don't invade a country unless you have a clear credible plan on how to build the nation post war. Bush and Blair were both extremely guiltly of basic incompetence in their planning. And dont apply a moral justification we could not hope to stay consistent to.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

A simple google search reveals IS to be followers of Salifism which is an ultra ultra ultra orthodox Sunni school that rejects any innovation from the time of Mohammed.

Turkey is a country with no official state religion and a functional democracy, two qualities that IS utterly reject and wish to destroy. IS and Turkey are totally opposed to one another at the most primal existential level.

Turkey have refused to arm or support the Kurds in their fight against IS due to their own long running dispute and wars with that group, and their fear the arms would be used against Turkey after IS had been dealt with. Not due to any sympathies to IS. Indeed, any support of IS by Turkey would be totally crazy. No doubt there are ultra orthodox people in Turkey who are funding and supporting IS, but not the state.

Should have specified I was talking about the schools of Islamic law. The Kurds follow Shafi'i, the Turks mostly Hanafi, as do most Muslims directly south of Turkey (hence me suggesting most IS members might follow the same school of law as Turkey). I’d found that IS follow Salifism but that isn’t a school of law, not much knowledge on how Islam all fits together but I’m assuming Salifism falls into a broader class of ideology.

Turkey’s secular nature has been eroded by recent successive governments on an official level and I’d imagine is at even more risk on an unofficial level. I could see an Egypt-type civil war between the government and army occurring there sooner or later if its political class carries on becoming more religiously conservative. If Turkey and IS were opposed to each other on a primal level, Turkey wouldn’t respond to IS bombing a pro-Kurdish peace rally by intensifying its attacks on Kurdish rebels. The reaction of the Turkish government to that bombing was as revealing as it was alarming as it was totally unjust.

Indeed there are people in Turkey funding IS, it’s probably the biggest financial supporter of IS in the world after Saudi Arabia. And what is an (apparently) democratic government if not the will of its people? If a minority of powerful people in Turkey are backing IS, that is no doubt reflective of a minority of its people in every walk of life, including politicians that make up government.

Never thought I’d back Russia on anything but the enthusiasm of Turkey to open fire is more than questionable in my opinion. There’ll be a lot of NATO allies seriously considering whether it’s worth having Turkey’s geographical strategic advantage over their increasingly dubious friendship.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Looks like Turkey was looking to make a point regarding Russian attacks on ethnic Turks in Syria. I think their allegations of Russian invasion of their air space are a bit thin to say the least. It's not on Putin's style to take this lying down.

[Husky]

Whatever spin they try and put on it NATO is a disgrace,

[Audax]

A lot of people blame the Gulf states and I'd be wary of Wahhabism, but it sure makes me wonder why UAE according to this article funded the Egyptian Military taking back the government of the Muslim Brotherhood.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/exclusive-emirati-plan-ruling-egypt-2084590756

And per the same website, UAE is funding Egypt fighting the ISIS affilated fighters in the Sinai peninsula.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/sinai-tribal-leader-demands-government-dialogue-militants-2098338591

So a lot of info out there, like they say "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", one can not really make out what is clear out of what is happening. In my opinion.

UAE should be on the side of radicals in this per conventional logic.

[T J Hooker]

Sorry off topic, but why is it that muslims are allowed to be openly homophobic(and proudly claim that its a major sin to them ) and this is not seen as an Issue? yet anybody that even dares to openly question islamic beliefs is Labelled as being "Islamaphobic"(which isn't even a real thing imo.) most muslims ive ever spoke to about homosexuality or heard speaking about the subject on tv cant even remotely grasp that being gay isn't a choice a person makes.

[yoda]

Sorry off topic, but why is it that muslims are allowed to be openly homophobic(and proudly claim that its a major sin to them ) and this is not seen as an Issue? yet anybody that even dares to openly question islamic beliefs is Labelled as being "Islamaphobic"(which isn't even a real thing imo.) most muslims ive ever spoke to about homosexuality or heard speaking about the subject on tv cant even remotely grasp that being gay isn't a choice a person makes.

because they want to change the place they live in

[roverandout]

Really sad that you are such a coward that you would walk away (if you ever believed in it) from liberty, humanity, fairness and human rights because 140 people have been killed across the channel by another bunch of cowards. It's hardly the blitz is it.

Glad we have had more backbone when times have actually been tough. No doubt you would have had all the Irish thrown out of the country too during the troubles.

Get a grip. Don't become narrow and mean in your thinking just because you are scared.

A bit late to the reply to this but scared?? What? I would love to take these @#/?s down with my bare hands, filthy scum

[K-Hod]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/katie-hopkins-shut-down-angry-6904025- 'you're going to reap, just what, you sow'.....